Cuban Fencing

[esskreemr]

At least we all agree that Cuban women (and apparently MyrddinsPrecint) are hot.

As for the political portion, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that since I've never been to Cuba, my knowledge of it's society, culture, and political climate are underestandably far from being complete.

The question is, who is the embargo hurting more? The Cuban people or Castro. How does it benefit the U.S? The Cuban people are probably not going to rebel any time soon. Cuba is a question mark that is way too close to our shores. We need to answer it so that we, and the Cuban people can move on.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

At least we all agree that Cuban women (and apparently MyrddinsPrecint) are hot.

hold on, who's "all"?? I don't remember agreeing to this....

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by afc fencer

Fine you gave a list with no sources. And since it has no sources it is null. I got ai from the front page of the whole litte report thing and it listed ai.

Originally Posted by Guardian Report

The tables were compiled by the Observer from the following sources: Amnesty International Report 1999; Amnesty International Country Reports; US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights 1999; United Nations Human Development Report (Human Development Index 1997)

Okay, so I was wrong about not using AI, but they ALSO use US State Dept. and UN sources. I would venture a guess that the State dept. is more likely to estimate high than low. btw, is there a reason you are of the opinion that Cuba has gotten dramatically worse on human rights since AI was kicked out? Everything I've heard indicates it's gotten better in that time (though not enough).

here's a thought: peruse the list and read the report before discounting it.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

there are actually 41 countries, not 34, worse in terms of human rights. btw, USA drops to 65th on this list, though we're still worse in terms of human rights than Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Djibouti and Kuwait. I don't know that being worse than Djibouti means anything, I just like saying Djibouti.

my guess is that the US will climb on the list if updated, as we aren't penalized at all in the category of "Detentions without Charge or Trial," and we've started doing that.

-m

Which opens up the question of who gets to sets the standards for what is considered "human rights abuses". For instance, I take it that it's an unarguable given for the compilers of these lists that capital punishment uner any circumstances qualifies, since most countries seem to take that position. And they do not even admit that there's any possible debate on the matter of whether putting a multiple-murdering sexual psychopath to death is really abuse. Yet I assume that the US would soar up that list if we did away with the death penalty...

Also, I think they need to update their lists, inasmuch as at least one of the countries listed, Yugoslavia, no longer even exists. And---since when is "Palestinian Authority" a country?

[afc fencer]

Okay, so I was wrong about not using AI, but they ALSO use US State Dept. and UN sources. I would venture a guess that the State dept. is more likely to estimate high than low. btw, is there a reason you are of the opinion that Cuba has gotten dramatically worse on human rights since AI was kicked out? Everything I've heard indicates it's gotten better in that time (though not enough).

The UN is not used on the last list you cited. The only report used from the UN was the United Nations Human Development Report. This report only talks about thinks like unemployment and the such not human right violations.

here's a thought: peruse the list and read the report before discounting it.

I did read the report and I read where it said they have not been there since 1988. If they havent been there how are they to know what is going on? Cuba has gotten,from what ive heard, a little better when it comes to human rights. But things are still awful. I have not read the state department report but some how i doubt they were allowed in....

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by afc fencer

The UN is not used on the last list you cited. The only report used from the UN was the United Nations Human Development Report. This report only talks about thinks like unemployment and the such not human right violations.

I did read the report and I read where it said they have not been there since 1988. If they havent been there how are they to know what is going on? Cuba has gotten,from what ive heard, a little better when it comes to human rights. But things are still awful. I have not read the state department report but some how i doubt they were allowed in....

well, if cuba has gotten better, and when it was worse, there were 41 countries with more abuse, then I think it's safe to say that they aren't as bad as some of the countries we support, which was, after all, the main point.

-m

[SJB]

My favourite things about Cuba debates (most of these have already been brought up):

1) They're godless communists! The US should have nothing to do with them!

See above lists.

2) They're human rights abusers!

See above lists.

3) Castro is a dictator!

See above lists.

Lastly, for all the complaints about Castro, Batista was a military junta dictator who, like Pinochet, was supported by the United States ( and the mob) while he abused his own people.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by MHS Fencer

I wasn't talking about you in particular - i believe there was an entire thread devoted to vouching for your looks/hitting on you/being scary and stalker-esque. In terms of frequency however, beauties in newengland are diamonds in the rough (which, I suppose, makes you appreciate them all the more).

I have heard that the prettiest women can be found in Atlanta.
Just a suggestion, mind you. You may have to come down yourself and see if I'm right.

[afc fencer]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

well, if cuba has gotten better, and when it was worse, there were 41 countries with more abuse, then I think it's safe to say that they aren't as bad as some of the countries we support, which was, after all, the main point.

-m

Ug. The list was flawed. It used the 99 AI report. The 99 AI report only took into account things that were reported. There is no list from when they were worse. Stop talking about the list. I have proven that the list is not a very good thing to base an argument on.
As to the US supporting nations who are major human rights abusers they do. But I really think Cuba is one of the worst. I have nothing to back this up other than stories ive heard. It is just what I think.
As for the embargo I agree with MHS fencer. I think the embargo will work other do not it can be argued for hours and hours and it is pointless to do so.

[MHS Fencer]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I have heard that the prettiest women can be found in Atlanta.
Just a suggestion, mind you. You may have to come down yourself and see if I'm right.

I knew I shouldn't have skipped nationals!

[Soldier]

Hot women can be found all over. I'm told there's even one here at the Academy, though I haven't seen her yet. It's about where they're in the highest concentration.

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Hot women can be found all over. I'm told there's even one here at the Academy, though I haven't seen her yet. It's about where they're in the highest concentration.

There's one in my office too. It's me! Har har!! Only joking.

On a more serious note, more enlightenment please (I've been posting a lot basically saying "huh?" this morning I'm sorry to say).
I can understand embargoes etc on the grounds of human rights abuse, but why do americans care so much is another country has a communist regime? What business is it of theirs how another country chooses to govern itself? I repeat, if it human rights abuses are inflicted on the people by that governing body, then that's obviously dreadful and everyone's business as a human being, but it does seem that communism per se is the subject of intense hatred by the us, not any human rights abuse associated with it. Like two issues; as SJB says, the objections raised include a) they're communists abd b) they have a bad human rights record. If they had an impeccable human rights record, would americans still object to their being communists? It seems like it but I may be misinterpreting these posts plus general impresssions from books, films and the media.

[Gav]

There was a recent article in the Scotsman about Cuban Fencing. They produce good fencers because they work hard on the fundamentals. They work hard because they love the sport and it's an opportunity for them. The bottom line is that they work hard.

[Soldier]

Don't you just hate how hard work keeps coming up as the solution to things? I'm told it even builds character...

Here's how I see it. We started the embargo because they were communists - and not just that, they were communists in our backyard (the worst kind!). We were going to do anything we could to keep them down.

Now that the USSR has collapsed, communism (even in our backyard!) isn't really a threat anymore. So, people started explaining the continuing embargo using human rights.

I would repeat my sentiments on the issue, but they're posted above, and repetition of a previously-stated position is what makes these threads degenerate so horribly as they do.

[Gav]

Don't you just hate how hard work keeps coming up as the solution to things? I'm told it even builds character...

Well [in my case] not working hard has built a LOT of character.

[Louweasel]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Here's how I see it. We started the embargo because they were communists - and not just that, they were communists in our backyard (the worst kind!). We were going to do anything we could to keep them down.

Now that the USSR has collapsed, communism (even in our backyard!) isn't really a threat anymore. So, people started explaining the continuing embargo using human rights.

This is EXACTLY what I am trying to understand Soldier! I'm not a communist myself, nor do I know a great deal about Cuba, but from a neutral point of view I would like to understand why communism itself (without any human rights issues) would cause embargoes to be set, and why it is seen as, as you put it Soldier, "a threat"? Why does/did communism threaten the US?

I lived in Russia for a short while, so I have seen the effects to a certain extent, and imho it doesn't and could never work due to human nature, it was badly implemented and corrupt, and human rights were not taken into account.(naturally is is a very complex issue but that's my little summary). However, the original fundamental idea was that imperialism was bad, everybody should have the same, that a minority shouldn't be wildly richer than others due to accidents of birth, and that everyone should be equal. And (oh my god I hardly dare post this) isn't that very similar to something very dear to the hearts of americans, beginning "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Considering the way things were in pre-revolutionary Russia, there's no wonder they jumped at the idea, but during the Cold War things were of course nowhere near as bad for the average american as they were for the average 19th century Russian, so why should they have feared communism as a threat?

I think I might be about to get kicked off my "distinguished road"...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

why do americans care so much is another country has a communist regime? What business is it of theirs how another country chooses to govern itself?

Perhaps the question contains it's own answer: because those countries, like Cuba, have NOT "chosen" to be governed that way. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" always seems to get simplified to "dictatorship, period" under communist regimes. Generally we don't like dictatorships, though we often tolerate them when they aren't also inclined to threaten us in one way or another.

In the case of Cuba there was a clear threat initially. The government there, ie Castro, was allowing the Soviet Union to place ballistic missiles there. Missiles aimed at guess who? Thus the sanctions. Alas, national policies tend to ossify and acquire the sanctity of tradition. Thus Cuba.

IMO there'a also one other factor: Cuba was a large producer of sugar, which has become one of our most zealously protected industries with a powerful lobby. Cuban expatriates are another powerful lobby. Add all of these together and, well, the outcome may be neither honorable nor honest but it is nevertheless comprehensible...

[dunastor]

Maybe lifting the embargo off Cuba hurts the black market in Cuban cigars?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by dunastor

Maybe lifting the embargo off Cuba hurts the black market in Cuban cigars?

...by turning it white?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

This is EXACTLY what I am trying to understand Soldier! I'm not a communist myself, nor do I know a great deal abou